click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
despite yesterday's reading of his miranda rights the federal government still holds swooifr the younger tsarnaev. negotiate ago plea deal under which he would cooperate with authorities in exchange for sparing his life remains an option. >>> the wife of the dead boston bombing suspect found out her husband and brother in law were the accused bomber the same way all americans did on tv. her lawyer claims she suspected nothing this as they ask another question was tamerlan tsarnaev involved in a 2009 triple murder. molly, we also hear that there is good news today about the victim. >> good morning, heather. two in critical condition. doctors are telling us everyone now in the hospital are expect to do survive. there were 14 patients that lost lefshs. boston medical center say many are up and walking and they are preparing for a massive exodus as they call it to rehab. many recoveries underway. investigators are looking to speak with suspect number one's wife tamerlan tsarnaev was married to katherine russell tsarnaev. they met in college in 2010 and sometime around that time converted to
ginnis in boston. thank you, susan. >>> for now federal officials have decided not to read tsarnaev his miranda rights. miranda rights inform criminals of their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney. this is allowed on a limited basis when the public may be in immediate danger, and there are those like senator lindsey graham who say tsarnaev should be consideredn enemy combatant so he can waive his right. others disagree. >> there's plenty of evidence. they don't need it to get him into a trial. i don't think we have to cross the line and say he's an enemy combatant which could be challenged in court. one circuit rules one way, one rules the other way. >> we should reserve the right to look at him as an enemy combatant and continue to look for evidence and if we find evidence and go to him as chuck says and gather intelligence. >> now the suspect's mother says tamer lan was contacted by fbi. the fbi says that is not true but the fbi did interview him in 2011 at the request of the russian government. officials are focusing on a trip he made to russia in 2012. sky news's katie sta
been officially given his miranda rights. meanwhile and of those victims one was buried today in. >> reporter: one week after the bombings several the suspects word acted the suspects acted alone and it was to the reason for the bombings was due to religious beliefs. earhart was finally read his miranda rights. john r. san his one word no when asked if he could afford an attorney. he is alert and mentally competent and aware of the circumstances that he is facing. also malicious destruction of property with an explosive device if convicted he could face the death penalty. tamara has communicated by using rioting. he was held up in a boat last friday. gerard 26 year-old brother use of the marathon bombing that killed three people injured over a hundred and 70 people and including carjacking and that engaging in a shootout and kill in the off. kill with police under bridge droll over while flame. the kid rush of when asked if he can afford lived in the united states for 10 years. just last year in is unclear he was doing in rush the court has resulting in death. yet or did he have
. >> and dan, how much longer can this questioning go on without reading the suspect his miranda rights? apparently, it hasn't happened yet. >> they're calling it the public safety exception. unclear how long they're allowed to do it. in past cases, like the underwear bomber, they questioned him for about 50 minutes and a court determined that was okay without a miranda warning. the further the time is away from the incident itself, the more perilous it is constitutionally. at some point, it doesn't matter. he challenges it later on, the court says, you shouldn't have done it. you shouldn't have questioned without his miranda. what happens then? that means, they throw out his statement. so what? they don't need his statement in connection. >> they have all the other evidence. >> this is about getting intelligence from him. not a statement they can use in court. >> and these charges expected to be filed. almost certain to face the death penalty. >> it will be a death-eligible charge for sure. a decision made later to seek the death penalty. the use of a weapon of mass destruction would b
. they didn't give a miranda warning so the aclu is shouting about that. and of course, well-known southern bell lindsey graham, why isn't he being treated as an enemy combatant? that one to me -- >> what about benghazi? >> shut up. >> stephanie: i'll always have benghazi. it is my terror. no. >> i would never go thirsty again. i'll have another mint julep thank you. >> stephanie: the legal expert i heard this weekend said this is a nonstarter to treat him as enemy combatants. did he a crime on u.s. soil. >> peter king said this. >> i believe -- should be portrayed as enemy combatants. senator mccain, senator graham, senator ayotte, there are so many questions unanswered so many potential links to terrorism here. the battlefield is now in the united states. i believe he is an enemy combatant. ultimately, he will be tried in a civilian court and the statements taken from him cannot be used against him in that trial. right now, the only links we have as much as chechnyan involvement in the islamic movement. are there other conspirators out there? where do they get the radicalization? >> he so
that they don't have to read him his miranda rights right away. as time passes, does the justification for that exception grow weaker? are they on ls strong ground? >> it sure does, because as you know, miranda rights are a bedrock constitutional principle. we all have the right to remain silent, t get an attorney and be advised of those rights. the public safety exemption is a very narrow exemption. there has to be an imminent threat to the public. it certainly seems less imminent. >> don't officials who say the terror is over, don't they kind of undercut that argument, and does it really matter in the end? >> this is certainly an argument that's going to be handed to this defendant's defense attorney when that time comes. there have been contradictory statements made that there is no public threat, there is no ticking bomb, thank goodness, apparently, based on what we know so far. so we're giving them an argument to use later. >> the issue is, the questioning that's permitted without miranda is very narrow in scope, correct? >> yes. it's about what the public threat is. it's not all
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6